inspect something like that. >> we have 10 or 15 seconds. mathews does not like bedbugs. can you runa quick search? >> come on, elly. tyke to go to work. >> matthew will get irritated. anything? all right? that will do it for today. hardball is up right now. shirley sues them. let's play "hardball." good evening. i'm chris matthews in washington. leading off, see you in court. shirley sherrod, the victim of andrew brooeitbart's campaign i heading back. she announced she's suing brooit part. that as president obama appeared

the view and accused them of overreacting. plus, remember how democrats promised to drain the swamp of republican scandals when they took control of the house? well, now one of their own prominent members, charlie rangel of new york, has been charged with 13 counts of violating congressional ethics. we'll get to that problem and the problem of his party. also, what's the damage from the bp oil spill? is it less drastic than we thought at first? a "time" magazine reporter says the worst fears are not realized. some gulf residents beg to differ. and countdown to zero. valerie plame, now the face and voice of a new documentary about the dangers of nuclear proliferation. she says we should be scared. and she joining us tonight here. and there are any amendments to the constitution the republicans don't want to get rid of?

lindsay graham wants to repeal the 14th amendment, which guarantees our rights to life, liberty and whatever, property. forward vermont governor howard dean is the former chairman of the democratic committee. and joan walsh is editor in chief of salon.com. let's watch. here's shirley sherrodç talkin to the national association of black journalists. this was out in san diego today. let's listen to her. >> he had to know that he was targeting me. now, whether he was also trying to target the naacp, he had to know that he was targeting me. and at this point, you know, he hasn't apologized. i don't want it at this point. he'll definitely hear from me. >> just to follow up o on there, there have been reports that you are considering a lawsuit. have you decided if you're going to pursue that action?

>> i will definitely. >> that's shirley sherrod says she's going to bring a suit against andrew breitbart. here's breitbart's defense. he says now he was going after nrk the naacp, not this government official. let's listen. >> so my motivation was to say i have evidence that shows based upon your standard of people in the audience behaving racist. we have an naacp sanctioned event in which the speaker is talking in a racist narrative, and which the audience, when she refers a white farmer to a white lawyer to send it to one of your own kind, and when she talks about not giving him the full weight of what she could do with her position, the audience cheers. >> well, you can't sue

everybody. she's suing the blogger that started this. andrew breitbart. he makes the defense it wasn't her that he was after. it was the naacp which had been charging the tea party people with being racist. he thought he was showing an example of where they have racial attitudes negative towards whites. that's his defense. your reaction. >> there's two things about this. first of all, he cut off the tape. he didn't show the whole story? >> he didn't? what did he cut out? >> he cut out about the part of redemption. >> it's in there. >> not on what fox news reported in their blog. >> it was not on breitbart. >> it was in there. yeah. he didn't edit it. not that i know about. >> no, he did. heç says he didn't edit it. >> he didn't edit it. what did he edit. >> it's a 43-minute tape. you can do this. >> no.

go ahead. >> it's a 43-minute tape. he clipped about two minutes where she seems to be saying i didn't do the best for this white farmer because he was white. then later she goes on -- >> i thought in the tape he did put out included that part in it. what he did was to suggest it was in current time in her role as a federal official. >> no, he did two things. >> he did that, too. >> he did that, too. there were two lies. he absolutely clipped or someone clipped the tape before she could say, the powerful message of redemption that democrats at least believe in. >> i am right. do we have the tape here? i believe this characterization is the problem. where he said -- no, where he said that this was something. because he said this was what goes on in this administration and suggested heavily this was her point of view as a government official. >> he did that. but he also clipped the tape.

>> no, it includes the tape. >> no, it doesn't. chris, really, you got to trust me and the governor on this. he really didn't. she goes on at the end to say i've learned it's about poor people. it's not about black versus white. >> i think it's in the tape. >> it's not the tape breitbart put out. >> no. it's not. >> i don't watch fox. you check. let me go on here. let's look at the situation as it goes now. is she going to win this suit? joan? is it possible you can win this chute? you're a public official. you're working for an administration. you give a speech at a public eechbt and then make a statement that's used against you. can she be successful in this suit? >> i have no idea. i'm not a lawyer. i think the real issue is she's a person who has been wronged, horribly wronged. and she's looking for some kind of judgment.

i'm not going to get into a debate about the merits of her suit, because i think, we get distracted. this happened to me over the weekend. governor dean knows this. you get distracted over is shirley sherrod doing the right thing, as opposed to why did andrew breitbart do this to this come? why did fox run withç it. and they were all ready to be go with it. why are we fighting over this fox-driven narrative of racial division? >> let's get back to that. how do you argue -- i know this came out from andrew breitbart's website. i know he put it out. i know that fox nation put it out on their website. how do you say it's a fox-driven story? tell me that. apparently the administration moved to push her out. >> not before the website. so you think by putting it up on

the website they're responsible for her being pushed out. >> well, they didn't pull the trigger. she was fired by the administration. but, it was their story, which turned out to be false. that led the administration to do this. >> but they hadn't put it on the hair. >> bill o'reilly taped it. his story didn't run until 8:00. >> it was their intention to show it. >> i understand what happened was -- >> the fox website is a major website that -- >> they call it a news website. >> well, we don't. but let's get back to the lawsuit thing. >> i heard a story went that her boss told her, this is going to be on glenn beck tonight, therefore we have to push you out the door. they didn't have evidence for sure it was going to be on glenn beck. i don't know if it was on glenn beck. >> no, it wasn't. she was fired because somebody heard a whisper that it might be on. whose fault is this again?

you say fox. >> when people put stuff up on their website that's not true -- >> how many people are receptacles? somebody blogs something without a point of view like breitbart. he puts it up. fox grabs it. they put it up. do other organizations check out -- >> they ought to. >> it wasn't just fox. let's be honest here. i think msnbc ran it. corrected it quickly. cnn ran it. >> we were straight on it. we didn't make any mistakes on this show. i don't believe thisç we're al guilty crap that goes on around here. i want to know who does this stuff. >> you want to go back to the public stuff for a second? i think it's an interesting legal question. if she's deemed to be a public figure, she doesn't have a case. you can say anything you damn well please about a public figure. >> how about a speech in a public arena? >> i'm not sure that makes you a public figure. northeast people in america had

never heard of her. i'm not a lawyer either, but that will be -- the case will turn on the question o whether she's a public figure. you cannot do what breitbart did to a private citizen? >> i understand that. let's go to the president at the urban league today. >> she deserves better than what happened last week. when a bogus controversy based on selective and deceiving excerpts of a speech led to her forced resignation. many are to blame for the reaction and overreaction that followed the comments. including my own administration. and rather than jump to conclusions and point fingers, and play some of the games that are played on cable tv, we should all look inward and try

to examine what's in our own hearts. >> john, why do you think he says cable tv and not fox. if i were to say every time a politician went before the ethics committee that all politicians are to blame, that would be nonsensical. it could have no meaning. he's not talking about cnn or the history channel or c-span. or bravo. why doesn't he just say what he has in mind? or is it that he doesn't like people talking about him or public discussions? does that bother him? does he not like the 24/7 news cycle in which he was born? why would he have a problem with what brought him to the white house? the 24/7 discussions that go on? >> i think he's tryingç to do something he does politically. it aggravates many democrats. he says washington. he bashes washington when he means the republican party that's obstructing hip. in this case he's bashing cable

news, when he's really talking about fox. but he's trying not to pick a fight with fox because he did that earlier and it didn't go so well. >> does he think people will bundle bouquets and bring them to him because he doesn't name fox when he means fox? >> i criticize this president for not being tough enough. >> let's look right now. here's the original chunk that was put out on shirley sherrod on breitbart's blog. let's watch what went out by breitbart. the original piece of stuff on this. let's watch it together.

>> well, the there you go. i opened my eyes. i realized it wasn't about black and white. so, joan, that part in there about redemptive revelation. >> chris, that little snip it was. but what she goes on is one of his own didn't help him. he goes back to her. she wound up helping him. she saved his farm. then she goes onto tell the story, which a story that i've told and to some extent governor dean has told it is how black and white people in the south were pitted against each other and taught to fight one another when they really had more in common. she goes onto say repeatedly

it's about poverty. >> why do you think if this was a complete slime job, why do you think breitbart kept that in there, governor? let me let the governor in here. why did he put the redemptive part in there at all? >> that is. >> what are you saying? we're not showing the right thing? >> i don't know what you're showing. >> you're challenging us. you're saying we made this up. that we put it in breitbart's blog? >> you sound like chris wallace. >> that's not what i saw on fox. i deidn't see the last piece about redemption. >> the governor doesn't believe us now. >> no, the governor believes you. come on. >> i don't know what that was. >> you don't know what that was. i'm telling you it was from the breitbart blog. >> i thought fox picked up -- fox had further edited the breitbart blog, i didn't know that. >> chris, you know what happens

in tv. i'm not going to say this part is malicious. different versions of the shorten clipped were shown. sometimes it had the part about i realized it wasn't about black and why. the point was why it ended there was it ends with her taking him to one of his own and doesn't go onto tell. >> i understand it's not full. the question is did breitbart get the full bite from somebody who gave it to him? >> right. and he says it was edited when he got it. we don't know. the point is the woman was depicted as a racist. she was depicted as a federal official who was discriminating against white people. this is the narrative they're putting out. white people are being oppress.ç whe white people are in danger by the president and all the black people he's associated with. this is a consistent story from fox.

we have the new black panther story. which is not a story. >> let's stay on this. >> i showed you the original breitbart. >> when i saw the story, the last piece wasn't it. nor, i might add, the most interesting thing about that -- >> that's why we had the dispute ten minutes ago. because that's not what i saw on the original blog. >> that's what breitbart put on there. >> maybe it did. >> it did. you can go check it and come back if it's not true. >> i'm not disputing you. i didn't look -- >> that's where it gets murky. coming up, charlie rangel holds a hearing. and the democrats promise to drain the swamp after the republican ethics violations. the political stakes run high. we'll get to that next. you're watching "hardball" only on msnbc. cheerios can help. the whole grain oats can help lower cholesterol.

it's simple; love your heart so you can do what you love. [ man ] if it was simply about money, every bank loan would be a guarantee of success. at ge capital, loaning money is the start of the relationship, not the end. i work with polaris every day. at ge capital, we succeed only when they do. whoo! awesome! yes! we've got to get you out of the office more often. ♪ my turn to drive. ♪ michele bachmann has joined

the tea part, iers in missouri. the trouble is bluntç voted fo the t.a.r.p. bank bill. and many tea party people in missouri support his senate primary challenge. one tea party leader says it's baffling thatba buck man would supporting someone with blunt's record. not the first time someone has been bafted by bachman. we'll be right back. now includes bifocals at the same great price for a limited time. hurry in to sears optical today and don't miss a thing. [ female announcer ] start your morning... hey. what are you doing up? i thought i'd take a drive before work. want to come? [ female announcer ] or make his day. yeah. [ female announcer ] maxwell house gives you a rich, full-flavored cup of coffee, so you can be good to the last drop.

i survived a chinese attack in north korea. and as a result of having survived that, i i haven't had a bad day since. today i have to reassess that. >> there's a sad man. welcome back to "hardball." that was new york congressman charlie rangel this morning. this afternoon the house committee presented 13 hard charges against rangel.

is in a big problem for democrats? nbc political analyst karr refin knee and republican strategist tom fearry is house aide to pastor. here's the problem. what he just said. that really doesn't show anything. that's a personal plea for i've served this country. give me a break, thing. >> it's a sad case. it's a sad day. they were tried to avoid having it go down this way. >> john, do you expect -- i really like charlie rangel. he was a good pal of tip o'neil. he was a friend of mine. i'm a friend of his. i'm very saddened by this whole thing. let's talk to "hardball" politics. is there any chance in hell -- don't chuckle too much, john.

are we in a situation that we're not going to get this resolved? you have five republicans on the ethics committee and five democrats. unless they're unanimous. certainly they were in putting the facts out on the table today, these charges. unless they're in agreement unanimously basically, this thing is not going to go away. as long as there's some republicans on the ethics committee who don't like a deal that's struck, it ain't going to be a deal that strikes. is that fair? >> i think that's fair. is the problem that the only way charlie gets awayç with this i if he tries to cop a plea or apology? whatever he's willing to give, it has to be accepted by all the republicans. not just one in order to make a majority. one majority with five democrats wouldn't be enough to make this work. >> i think this is going to go onto further investigation, and i think that's a problem for the democrats. i think that they did offer a deal for mr. rangel, and he turned it down. # and i think that this is going to stretch on for white a while

now, to the end of august. this reminds me very much of what happened in 1994 with dan. he fought it and fought it and fought it. all then it was really a problem for him in the election and a problem for the democrats. i think the same thing is going to happen this fall. i like charlie rangel, too. i think that he's well liked by all his colleagues. he has served the country very well. but, chris, we've seen the story before. where people who serve a long time in congress get a sense of entitlement and feel they can do anything they want and the the rules change and they don't keep up with the rules, and then they get caught. i think that's what happened with charlie rangel. >> we'll see if that's all true. let's listen to the speaker today. nancy pelosi, the speaker. >> i am going to comment on what we did do to drain the swamp. the swamp was described in the press as a criminal sin di cat operating out of the republican leader's office.

what we did is to implement the toughest ethics reform in a generation. >> that was about tom delay. let's look at her today on the process of draining the swamp. here's more of nancy pelosi. then i want to get back to our two guests. >> drain the swamp we did because this was a terrible place. and we had made a tremendous difference, and i take great pride in that. there are going to be individual issues to be dealt with, yes. but we would have a process to deal with it. it would be internal. and it would be external. >> here from the charges that have been drafted and put out by the committee today. they're generic. these are basically if you've been reading the press for the past few weeks you'll recognize them. 13 charges against rangel cover four areas. improper solicitations for donations. that has to do with the set up he had up there with the oil company. financial disclosure errors. improper subsidized apartment

use. and not reporting or paying taxes on his rental home. he hasn't been paying the taxes on the income from that. john, icç this the kind of thin that would cause an expulsion? is this up in traffic country or smig like that or ozzy myers country? would this be at that level? >> that's a great question, chris. i honestly don't know. the fact that he's the ways and means director and doesn't pay his taxes is pretty heavy. the financial disclosure stuffs, that's a federal offense. you have to file the things correctly. like howard dean. i'm not a lawyer. in the court of public opinion this could be very devastating. this speaks to the arrogance of power. the rent subsidized apartment, misusing that. that drives people bonkers. especially in new york. it speaks to the arrogance of power. >> are the democrats in trouble

on this? do they have to get him to do something really drastic like apologize and worse, he's not going to run again, do they have to do this? >> i don't think they do. the process has been playing itself out. >> with a public hearing. >> that's the process the democrats set up when nancy pelosi did come in and drain the swamp, and frankly, the fact that we're at this point shows that process is working. i know the republicans -- >> they want a hearing. >> they do. but they're trying to compare it to what we talked about in 2006. >> yes or no, does your side want a public trial, john? >> well, i think we wan the process to move forward and justice be done. i don't know that we necessarily want a trial. we want the facts out there to the best we can. we also want some justice here. >> your side like would like to have it over with. >> his side doesn't want bush's big book to come out in october.

i'm just saying. >> changing the suggest. thank you, karen finney. >> up next, you may be surprised to hear which republican senator, i'm shocked and offended by this wanting to get rid of the 14th amendment. he wants to get rid of it. stick for the side show. one of my heros has let me down. you're watching "hardball" only on msnbc. you know, when i grow up, i'm going to own my own restaurant. i want to be a volunteer firefighter. when i grow up, i want to write a novel.

i want to go on a road trip. when i grow up, i'm going to go there. i'm going to work with kids. i want to fix up old houses. [ female announcer ] at aarp we believe you're never done growing. i want to fall in love again. [ female announcer ] together we can discover the best of what's next at aarp.org.

back to "hardball." now to the side show. what's in a birthright? once thought a moderate on immigration. republican senator lindsay graham now says he's in favor of changing the 14th amendment, the one that says children born in the u.s., anyone born in the united states is automatically a citizen.

here is on fox. >> i may introduce a constitutional amendment that changes the rules. if you have a child here, birthright citizenship is a mistake. we should change our constitution and say if you come here illegal and have a child, that child is not a automatically is a citizen. people come here to have babies. it's called drom drop and leave. have a child in america. kros the border. that child is automatically an american citizen. that shouldn't be the case. that attracts people here for all the wrong reasons. >> this is going to be a major issue. on a lighter note, the president talked about chelsea clinton's upcoming wedding on "the view." >> were you invited to chelsea clinton's wedding. >> you know, i was not invited because i think that hillary and bill properly want to keep this as thing for chelsea and her soon to be husband. and i am going to have -- i am letting you guys know now, y'all

probably will notç be invited malea's wedding or sasha's. >> have boys entered the picture yet for your girls? >> thankfully no. >> wow. no more comment. up next, a new report. "time" magazines says the oil spill in the gulf of mexico may not be as catastrophic as once feared. we'll talk to the author of that report in "time" and see if it stands up when we return. you're watching "hardball" only on msnbc. it's transformed the way i invest. experience high-tech investing at e-trade.

♪ [ male announcer ] he's sweet, even with 1/3 less sugar than soda. kool-aid delivering more smiles per gallon. not that long ago, many families were priced out of an overheated housing market. but the times have changed. get the facts at remax.com. it's a great place to see all the listings in thousands of cities and towns. with lots of houses to chose from and down-to-earth prices the dream of owning a home seems more attainable than ever. find out what an experienced re/max agent can do for you. nobody sells more real estate than re/max. visit remax.com today.

i'm julia boorstin with your cnbc market wrap. stocks sea sawing to a negative close. the s&p 500 slipping 4.5%. and the nasdaq losing about 1 points. a rocky session today. the dow bouncing around in a

200-point range on uneven corporate earnings. exxon mobil with a better than expected quarterly profits boosted by strong earnings from refinery operations. sony shares returning 7%. sales of cell phones doing very well in emerging sell markets. radio shack doing better than expected. chip makers nvidia plunging around 10% after lowering their quarterly outlook on slowing demand. catalog shar kellogg shares tumbling on weak earnings and outlook. now back to "hardball." >> back to "hardball." has the environmental damage in

the gulf of mexico from the bp oil spill been overblown? reports this week show the oil slick on the the gulf's surface is dissolving rapidly. and he spoke to several marine scientists saying the impact of the sea life and ecosystem is not as great as everyone feared. he joins us now with ber nard, chairman of the port authorities. let me go to michael first. i must have been wrong. i kept asking for weeks before the spill occurred, will this biodegrade. i was told over and over again it would not biodegrade. we would be stuck with up to 60,000 barrels a day. we would be stuck with it. until finally something eroded. you're saying the evidence so far is it has eroded rapidly. >> well, look. all oil is biodegradable.

this is thick, tary stuff. there's still a lot of oil in the water. we don't know what we don't know. when you look at the wildlife count so far and look at how many marshes have actually been affected by the oil so far, there really isn't a lot of evidence of severe environmental damage, certainly compared to oil spills in the past, and certainly compared to the ongoing environmental catastrophe that's happening in southern louisiana, which is really the disappearance of the state's coastal marshes. >> your assessment based on being on the ground in the shoreline? >> i've read the article. it's too early to tell. one a contractor. one is an employee of bp. i'm not feeling this article. you don't just measure the disaster by how many fish and oysters are gone. at the end of june 835 pelicans

were dead. we lose one and it's too many. pelicans were on the endangered species list until a career ago. i can't agree with this article at all. it's completely too early to ç tell. >> what led you to decide to put the lead in the positive fashion? what led you to believe you have to put a piece together? what on balance led you to think that there's reasonable plausibility that this is going to end up rather well compared to what we thought it was going to be like? what led you that way? >> this wasn't the story i went to write. i was reporting something very different. >> okay. >> but, in fact, all the scientists i've talked to, and he's wrong. there were four scientists quoted in that pretty short article -- talked a lot, you know, they showed me the data. they said this wasn't the kind of impact they were expecting. it's funny now ho hear everybody saying we have no idea what's going to happen. it's way too early to tell the impacts. i keep saying, now you tell us?

for the last three months all i've heard is this is the worst environmental disaster in the history of the country. >> the question i have is the question that has loomed for weeks and months now. the gulf of mexico is pretty deep. and that oil sinks. and it goes out there. we're always wondering how many years or months certainly would it be coming back to haunt us over its own time span? we wouldn't get all the damage right away. it would come in depending on storm conditions and currents. how do you know it's not out there in bulk as bad as we thought it was? perhaps four million barrels sta still out there? >> there's a lot we don't know. it's nice to hear the alarmists admitting we don't know how bad this is going to be. in oil spills in the past there have been some long-term impacts. exxon veldez" the fisheries v d haven't entirely recovered.

certainly not the environmental catastrophe we've been hearing about. this is lighter oil. it's a much warmer gulf. and the mississippi river water kept a lot of the oil away from the shore. we heard this was going to be a catastrophe for the coastal marsh lands. so far about 350 acres of oiled marsh lands. every year louisiana is losing 15,000 acres, you know, just through manmade processes already happening. like one of theç scientists fo the autobahn of all places told me this is like -- >> what is happening this the new orleans area? what are you getting in terms of daily reports dooj to the wildlife? the fisheries, everything you're trying to get down there in terms of food and employment? >> let's talk about the 358 acres he's talking about. that has everything to do with not wanting to lose 358 more acres. the oil is in the marsh, which

means it's in the grass. if it's in the gas it's in the seminole environment of the ecosystem. it's directly relate to do the food chain. if there's no grass, there's no shrimp. if there's no shrimp, there's no oyster. and on and on and on and on. today you cannot buy an oyster in the city of new orleans. the largest oyster distribution fresh water shop in america is closed. that's a direct affect on this storm. this storm cannot just be calculated in fish and shrimp. there's a psychological damage here. there's a layering of depression that goes on and on. our very vortex of our culture is at risk. >> your reaction, michael? i also want to know if this oil has gone below the surface and largely disappeared so we don't know if it's still there. my question is this, can it evaporate below the surface of the hoil? does it need the sunshine to

evaporate? >> i'm sorry if he's depressed about 350 acres of oiled marshed. but louisiana has lost more than 200,000 square miles of coastal marshes in the last century. that's why he should be depressed. a lot of it was because of the oil and gas industry. it's a blip on the scale. some of the worst critics in the oil industry were telling us that. as for the oil under the water, that's certainly a question. there was a lot of fear that you're going to start seeing much lower dissolved oxygen levels. in fact, you have seen some slight oxygen depletion. but nothing compared to the kind of hypoxia you already have in the gulf. i hold no grief for bp in this. i think they're just as -- they screwed up just as badly if there's not a lot of environmental damage as they would have if there's huge amounts of environmental damage. these rigs are not supposed to blow up.

and 11 people have died. and that's a real tragedy. but the fact is, you know, we're not seeing the kind of environmental damage that -- and if people are depressed it may be because people are making such a big deal about this environmental damage. >> i made a big deal about it. i may continue to. i fear for it. i haven't hyped it for any reason. i am worried about the damage to our environment. especially north america. it's the only one we've got. this is the first positive report i've gotten. that's why i've been concerned. to me it's been a tragedy from day one. bernard charbonnet, sir, thank you for joining us with your reports. michael, thank you. congratlations if you turn out to be right. if you're right, that's great news. up next, the scenario you that keeps the country's intelligence community up at night. a nuclear attack either by a rogue nation or loose nukes in the hands of terrorists. how real a threat is it? how imminent?

valerie plame-wilson, the former cio operative who was outed is next.

it's midsummer and the races for governor are up for grabs. a new poll shows jerry brown leading meg whitman by three points now. and in a senate race, barbara boxer has a çfive-point lead or carly fiorina. california is a state the republicans need to win to get control of the senate. "hardball" will be right back.ç

welcome back to "hardball." a new documentary "count dwroun zero" takes a look at on going threat from nuclear weapons and the length terroristses have gone to procure them. in the film, valerie plame wilson says just before the 9/11 attacks, osama bin laden and his number two sat down with pakistan nuclear scientists and discussed nuclear weapons. in this clip, expert graham allison talkses about al qaeda's continuing mission. >> the objective of al qaeda is to "kill 4 million americans including 2 million children. this is in his calculation what's required to balance the scales of justice. he takes various incidents from shatilla to the war in iraq and counts up the body count and says that's how many people we're out, 4 million. you're not going to get to kill

4 million people by hijacking airplanes and crashing them into aims. joining me now is valerie plame wilson. thanks for joining me tonight. this is an important film, obviously. most of the questions we've been asking is why didn't the bad guys simply go over to the former soviet union, sort around and look around for desperate russian former nuclear engineers, give them a couple million bucks and buy a nuclear weapon from them. why hasn't that happened? >> hi, chris. thank you for having me. this is really important. this is such a chilling wake-up call. that scenario might have happened as the film points out, you can buy a bomb, steal a bomb or build a bomb. and in fact in the republics of the former soviet union, it is very much a freeh free-for-all. there's a great clip in the film where one of our experts talks about potatoes are guarded better than highly enriched

uranium, fissile material used in nuclear weapons. >> let's talk about iran. let's go to iran right now. is it -- my sense people talk to me have told me that the mullahs over there or the reformers are united in that country. they want a nuclear weapon to bolster the prestige of that country in the region. if that's the case no, matter what happens to the politics over there, it seems to me, we're facing a real challenge of having a country like that with a nuclear arsenal eventually. >> indeed, i don't think there's any question that iran is seeking a nuclear weapon. the question then becomes if they get it, then you begin an arms race in that entire region. and it just continues to build, which is why countdown to zero not only talks about the horrors of nuclear weapons, the proliferation either through terrorists or madness, miscalculation or accident, but that you need ultimately to get to zero. and that is -- it's not going to

be done easily, unilaterally, but in a very well orchestrated disciplined way. but ultimately, that's the path we have to be on. >> this clip deals with iran. let's look at the iran nuclear program here. >> without question, iran is trying to get a nuclear bomb. they've made that very clear despite their promises they're only pursuing civilian peaceful objectives for their nuclear program. they're really good at trying to bring things in that can be used for their nuclear program. the iranians have worked very hard at disguising and hiding their facilities. many of their facilities are in crowded urban areas and underground. extremely well protected from any sort of aerial bombing. >> if iran were to acquire nuclear weapons capability, the impact across the whole of the region, you will get a whole set of other countries deciding they've got to acquire nuclear

weapons capability. >> you've been a spy, an intelligence officer watching this for a long time now we know. what do you worry about most? i know you want to get to zero, but short of that, what's your biggest concern. >> before that. >> obviously before that. we only have ten seconds, is it iran, pakistan, terrorists? >> i think people who think about this and look at this i think pakistan is veryç worrise because it's such a volatile region. and we cannot have a lot of confidence in their command and control. so that's where i would worry. >> we hope to have you back for this as the movie comes out. thank you so much. great to have you on. >> thank you for having me. >> i've always been a fan. let me finish with the real reason why shirley sherrod was forced to resign. you're watching "hardball." ♪ a day once dawned ♪ ♪ and it was beautiful ♪ ♪ so, look, see the sights

♪ that you learned [ male announcer ] at&t covers 97% of all americans. at&t. rethink possible. buy a pantech messaging phone like the impact, and get a pantech messaging phone free after mail-in rebate. [ dog barking ] [ sniffing ] [ male announcer ] missing something? like 2 pairs of glasses for $99.99 at sears optical. now includes bifocals at the same great price for a limited time. hurry in to sears optical today and don't miss a thing. [ male announcer ] when you put everything you've got into it, have the accolades to prove it, and extend a 60-day handshake to honor it, the only thing left to do is share it.

the ram tent event. drive one without a payment for 60 days, and if it doesn't do everything you ask it to do, bring it back. ram.

let me finish tonight with a very short, sharp statement of why shirley sherrod was forced to resign from the department of agculture. on this point she's right and president obama is wrong. the villain was not some amorphous entity known as the media. that's like an old cliche. we're all guilty. no, we're not. certain people did certain things. if they hadn't done those things this episode would not have occurred. the attack on sherrod that led to her resignation. the fact is this whole episode consists of a decision of andrew breitbart to put on his website a presentation of her statement

that made it appear as if it were made in her role with the department. not 24 years in the private sector. without which this matter would 0 not have been a matter. the second decision was made by the person work forth fox nation website without the checking the facts. that i assume is how the people in the obama administration got word the blog was going viral. that's the way it laid out there. scaring somebody to put the pressure on shirley sherrod to quit and there be relieve the obama administration of responsibility. she was told simply, you're going to be on glen beck. again, shirley sherrod is right. it wasn't the media that made these decisions that victimized her. it was the blogger who put out is the story, the network website that sent the story viral. we are not all guilty, mr. president, any more than all politicians are guilty when one of you screws up. thanks for being with us. right now it's time